Our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode with QuotedData's Edward Marten has just been released. Listen here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Fair comment. But the fact there is that they were claiming it was within the rules. In many cases it wasn't. (On the subject of parliamentary expenses there is even - or an least to be - a seperate supplementary page for ones tax return. It is, to me, more than little unethical that the "wholly neccesarily and exclusively" for job related expenses don't apply in the same way for MPs).
I am not saying that these holders are within the rules. Merely that I expect they are. That neither makes me right nor their behaviour ethical.
You minded me of the Members of Parliament who built duck houses on ponds and flipped houses. It was all within the rules. Yet when they examined what was going on, the police sent some of them to prison.
Blutonyblu,
It is a bit counter intuitive isn't it. :-) But those are the rules.
If it were the case that mere posession of information barred then it means no director, employee, adviser etc could ever deal. (I was always in posession of inside info as an employee. Of my employer and their clients. The same would be true of most employees. The question is how price sensitive it is).
For the exemption to apply you would need to demonstrate that you would have taken the same action had you not been in possession of the information. An example could be something like selling to fund a house purchase.
It would be much more difficult had one made a purchase.
I am not saying there is no issue. Merely that any issue isnt is specific to nuog. It seems unlikely to me that these people (however much one may find it distateful) have almost certainly acted within the disclosure framework - or at least near enough to avoid censure in any ensuing investigation.
lol that doesnt make any sense. he can have inside information and trade as long as he doesnt trade due to THE inside information he has???
and who is going to know his true iintention in his head??? lie detector test??
plus afraid to say stinks, all 3 guys wack out holding rns at same time...price spikes and 2 sell out???or go below 3%???
are they acting as concert party??? make them bid for company??lol